Dear PAO,
I am accused of a certain crime, and the complainant made minor discrepancies between her affidavit and her testimony in court. Am I correct in my assumption that such discrepancies would affect her credibility?
Kumpormae
Dear Kumpormae,
Generally speaking, the qualification of a witness, such as the complainant, is provided under Section 21, Rule 130 of A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, or the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence, which reads:
“All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses.”
Correlative thereto, Section 22 of the said Rules also provides that:
“A witness can testify only to those facts which he or she knows of his or her personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his or her own perception.”
The examination of a witness is to be done in open court. This is in consonance with Section 1, Rule 132 of the same Rules:
“The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall be done in open court, and under oath or affirmation. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the question calls for a different mode of answer, the answers of the witness shall be given orally.”
It may happen that there will be inconsistencies between the testimony in court and the earlier affidavit of the complainant or witness. With respect to minor inconsistencies, the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Pacu-an vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 237542, June 16, 2021, penned by Honorable Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos, is very enlightening, viz.:
“Given the natural frailties of the human mind and its incapacity to assimilate all material details of a given incident, slight inconsistencies and variances in the declarations of a witness hardly weaken their probative value. It is well settled that immaterial and insignificant details do not discredit a testimony on the very material and significant point bearing on the very act of accused-appellants.
In Avelino v. People, the Court reiterated the ruling in Madali v. People and held that “[a]s long as the testimonies of the witnesses corroborate one another on material points, minor inconsistencies therein cannot destroy their credibility. Inconsistencies on minor details do not undermine the integrity of a prosecution witness.” In People v. Manigo, the Court ruled that as between a sworn statement or affidavit and an open court testimony, courts must always give more weight to the open court declarations since “affidavits being taken ex-parte are usually incomplete and inaccurate.” Furthermore, in People v. Dayaday, the Court ruled that sworn statements taken ex parte are, as a general rule, considered to be inferior to the testimony given in open court, to wit:
A sworn statement or an affidavit does not purport to contain a complete compendium of the details of the event narrated by the affiant. Sworn statements taken ex parte are generally considered to be inferior to the testimony given in open court.”
Applying the above-quoted jurisprudence to your situation, minor discrepancies or inconsistencies between the testimony given in open court and the affidavit of the complainant does not discredit her or affect her credibility as long as the testimony can be corroborated in its material points. In fact, minor inconsistencies are even treated as badges of truth instead of an indication of falsehood because it shows that the same was not rehearsed or coached. As between the testimony and the affidavit, the former will be controlling because the complainant-witness was subjected to direct and cross examination.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net
